Enter the link in google and then click on "translate". The translater is not perfect, but it works to a point where you get the general idea.

This article proposes the "Method Of Controlled Imbalance" (MCI). This means that one works towards a balance/imbalance in the aquarium that favours only one type of algae, namely GSA (green spot algae), which is easy to control and remove, ie:

On a personal level, I like the way this guy has presented this method without attacking other methods. He makes reference to the Refield Ratio for example. The way I understand what he's said (allowing for the translation) is that this ratio was arrived at based on a study of the marine environment, and so is not entirely applicable to the planted tank. But it doesn't make the ratio wrong per se.

The thing is that the Redfield ratio of 16:1 was the average ratio of nitrogen to phosphate found in Redfields studies...but it wasn't stictly a 16:1 ratio everywhere. There were variations in the ratio depending on the environment, which simply averaged out at 16:1, and we find similar variations in our tanks. So I think what Rubilar's saying is not to use the Redfield ratio blindly, but taking it as a startpoint from which you can determine the actual ratio needed in your tank will put you along the right lines.

He also mentions the EI method. While he disagrees with the method, he says he liked some of the work Tom Barr did in arriving at it - in particular, the use of bio-indicators as opposed to test kits. And Tom Barrs work there actually forms the foundation of this Method of Controlled Imbalances.

So he disagrees with a strict Redfield Ratio, and he disagrees with the EI method. But it is actually almost through a culmination of the two methods that he arrives at this Method of Controlled Imbalances. And following this method basically means you only dose what your plants will consume, and if you're dosing only dosing what the plants will consume then you shouldn't have any algae.

The local "Planted Tank" forum, which I joined recently, promotes the use of bio-indicators, suggesting to rely on them rather than your test kits. Few of the members actually have test kits, in-line with very popular Mr. Tom Barr's theories.An interesting notion that takes a bit of getting used to.

Wrt Redfield: I think Rubilar may well have a point.However, it could possibly be argued that the chemical environment in which the algae evolved millions (billions?) of years ago, was less emancipated than the later environments in which the higher plants evolved.Today we see algae growing next to plants, but we also see plants growing in areas where there are no algae at all. Which means that there must be a condition of chemical ratios in that environment that favours the plants but not the algae. This theory supports the Redfield Ratio.On the other hand, I know - for a fact - that certain plants prefer different P:N ratios putting the 1:16 number to shame.So where does that leave us ?The EI system of excess feeding to the extent that only the light intensity limits plant growth comes across as a bit heavy handed (I've never tried it, mind you).

So, Rubilar's method of testing the consumption seems the right way to do it. I think I'll give it a go.

Rubilar says that he had reports of gsa in light levels down to 0.7 Watt/L (=2.6 WPG). That's still quite a bit. I'm (going to) running on 1.4 WPG (6.3LSI), which - according to our light exercise - is the medium-top of the "lo-light" category.